Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHIDAYAH VILLAGE - Filed GR-GEOTECHNICAL REPORT/SOILS REPORT -II GEOTECHNICAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION REPORT ISLAMIC CENTER OF FORT COLLINS 925 WEST LAKE STREET FORT COLLINS,COLORADO 111 EEC PROJECT NO. 1102081 Prepared for: KBK Structural Design 7899 South Lincoln Court, Suite 203 Littleton, Colorado 80122 Attn: Mr. Lutfur R. Khandaker,P.E. 0 Prepared by: Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. 4396 Greenfield Drive Windsor, Colorado 80550 I 111 January 5, 2011 EARTH ENGINEERING KBK Structural Design CONSULTANTS, INC. 7899 South Lincoln Court, Suite 203 Littleton, Colorado 80122 Attn: Mr. Lutfur R. Khandaker, P.E. (lrk2665@msn.com) Re: Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Islamic Center of Fort Collins 925 West Lake Street Fort Collins, Colorado EEC Project No. 1102081 Mr. Khandaker: Enclosed, herewith, are the results of the geotechnical subsurface exploration for the proposed Fort Collins Islamic Center and associated pavement area project planned for construction at 925 West Lake Street in Fort Collins, Colorado. This study was completed in general accordance with our proposal dated December 16, 2010. In summary, the subsurface materials encountered in the six (6) soil borings completed at this 0 site consisted of overburden soils classified as sandy lean clay transitioning to clayey/silty sands, which extended to the depths explored. Groundwater was encountered at approximate depths of 15 to 20-feet below existing site grades. In review of the field and laboratory test results, we observed the upper portion of the cohesive subsoils exhibited drier in-situ moisture contents along with generally low swell potential, while the lower portion of the cohesive zone, encroaching into groundwater levels, exhibited soft/compressible conditions with an increase in moisture content. It is our opinion the proposed foundations and floor slabs could be supported on suitable strength, low volume change subgrade soils. Care will be needed to thoroughly evaluate subgrade and bearing soils at the time of construction to assess the potential for heaving or settlement caused by swell or consolidation of the in-situ soils. Flatwork and pavements could be supported on 1 reconditioned on-site soils or ground modified subsoils, understanding that some movement may occur. Geotechnical recommendations concerning subgrade preparation, design and construction of the foundations, support of floor slabs, and pavements are provided in the attached report. 4396 GREENFIELD DRIVE WINDSOR, COLORADO 80550 970) 545-3908 FAX (970) 663-0282 a: r Yt e> EEC Project No. 1102081 Earth Engineering Consultants,Inc. January 5,2011 Page 2 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning the enclosed report, or if we can be of further service to you in any other way,please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, o Earth En ineering Consultants,Inc. r c\.10 L1S. , D tPt! Ei e 2 12 ; Qi e i 1*°9e /7.,/ k N ti- David A. Richer, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Reviewed by: Lester L. Litton, P.E. Principal Engineer II II II 11 II I 1 I 1 II D GEOTECHNICAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION REPORT ISLAMIC CENTER OF FORT COLLINS O 925 WEST LAKE STREET FORT COLLINS,COLORADO EEC PROJECT NO. 1102081 0 January 5, 2011 INTRODUCTION The subsurface exploration for the proposed Islamic Center of Fort Collins planned for construction at 925 West Lake Street in Fort Collins, Colorado, has been completed. For this study, a total of six (6) soil borings were completed within the development area to obtain information on existing subsurface conditions. The borings were extended to depths of 0 approximately 10 to 30-feet below present site grades. Individual boring logs and a site diagram indicating the approximate boring locations are provided with this report. We understand this project consists of a proposed 2-story structure with approximately 7,000 square feet of floor space per level and containing a full basement approximately 12 feet below 111 1 s floor level elevation. We anticipate maximum wall and column loads will be on the order of 1 to 4 klf and 150 to 200 kips respectively. If these loading conditions vary significantly, we should be consulted to re-evaluate the foundation design recommendations as presented herein. Floor loads are expected to be light. West of the building footprint will be associated pavement areas to accommodate the anticipated traffic flow and parking. Pavement traffic is expected to include predominately automobiles with occasional heavier truck traffic in limited areas.Minor grade changes are expected to develop final site grades. The purpose of this report is to describe the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings, analyze and evaluate the test data and provide geotechnical recommendations concerning design and construction of the foundations and support of floor slabs and pavements. Those recommendations are based, in part, on discussions with the project design team. I 1 1 Earth Engineering Consultants,Inc. EEC Project No. 1102081 January 5,2011 Page 2 EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES oThe boring locations were determined and established in the field by a representative of Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. (EEC) by pacing and estimating angles from identifiable site afeatures. The locations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used to make the field measurements. Photographs of the site,taken at the time 0 of drilling, are also provided with this report. 111 The borings were performed using a truck mounted,CME-45 drill rig equipped with a hydraulic head employed in drilling and sampling operations. The boreholes were advanced using 4-inch nominal diameter continuous flight augers. Samples of the subsurface materials encountered were obtained using split-barrel and California barrel sampling techniques in general accordance with ASTM Specifications D-1586 and D-3550,respectively. In the split-barrel and California barrel sampling procedures,standard sampling spoons are driven a into the ground by means of a 140-pound hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the samplers is recorded and is used to estimate the in-situ relative density of cohesionless materials and,to a lesser degree of accuracy,the consistency of cohesive soils and hardness of weathered bedrock. Relatively undisturbed samples are obtained in the California sampler. All samples obtained in the field were sealed and returned to the laboratory for further examination, classification, and testing. Moisture content tests were performed on each of the recovered samples. In addition, the unconfined strength of appropriate samples was estimated using a calibrated hand penetrometer. Washed sieve analysis and Atterberg limits tests were completed on selected samples to evaluate the quantity and plasticity of the fines in the subgrade soils. Swell/consolidation tests were completed on selected samples to evaluate the tendency of the soil to change volume with variation in moisture content and load. Results of the outlined tests are indicated on the attached boring logs and summary sheets. I I II 1111 Earth Engineering Consultants,Inc. D EEC Project No. 1102081 January 5,2011 Page 3 As a part of the testing program,all samples were examined in the laboratory by an engineer and a classified in accordance with the attached General Notes and the Unified Soil Classification System based on the texture and plasticity of the soil. The estimated group symbol for the Unified Soil Classification System is indicated on the boring logs. A brief description of the oUnified Soil Classification System is included with this report. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The proposed Islamic Center project site is located along the south side of Lake Street, east of South Shields Street at 925 West Lake Street in Fort Collins. The site is a vacant,undeveloped tract of land with light vegetation,and is relatively flat exhibiting positive surface drainage to the 0 northeast.Evidence of prior building construction was not observed on the referenced property by EEC field personnel. An EEC field engineer was on site during drilling to evaluate the subsurface conditions encountered and supervise the drilling activities. Field logs prepared by EEC site personnel were abased on visual and tactual observation of disturbed samples and auger cuttings. The final boring logs included with this report may contain modifications to the field logs based on the results of laboratory testing and evaluation. Based on the results of the field borings and laboratory evaluation, subsurface conditions can be generalized as follows. At the surface of each boring was vegetation and a thin layer of topsoil containing root growth and organic matter. Native soils,primarily classified as sandy lean clay to clayey or silty sand were encountered beneath the topsoil layer, and extended to the depths explored. The upper cohesive soils encountered beneath the surface topsoil layer were relatively dry, varied from medium stiff to very stiff in consistency and exhibited generally low swell potential and moderate bearing capacity characteristics. The subgrade soils became moist to saturated with depth. The clayey silty sand portions of the subgrade were medium dense with low swell potential. The stratification boundaries indicated on the boring logs represent the approximate locations of changes in soil types. In-situ,the transition of materials may be gradual and indistinct. I 1 II Earth Engineering Consultants,Inc. O EEC Project No. 1102081 January 5,2011 Page 4 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS aObservations were made while drilling and after completion of the borings to detect the presence and depth to hydrostatic groundwater. At the time of drilling,free water was observed in borings oB-2 and B-3 at depths of approximately 18Y2 feet below existing ground surface elevation. The boreholes were backfilled upon completion of drilling so that longer term groundwater levels D were not obtained. Based on the observed water levels and moisture contents of the recovered samples,we expect the depth to groundwater to be on the order of 15 to 20 feet below existing D site grades at the time of drilling. Groundwater depths are shown on the top right hand portion of the enclosed boring logs. aFluctuations in groundwater levels can occur over time depending on variations in hydrologic conditions and other conditions not apparent at the time of this report. Longer term monitoring of 0 water levels in cased wells,which are sealed from the influence of surface water would be required to more accurately evaluate fluctuations in groundwater levels at the site. We have typically noted deepest groundwater levels in late winter and shallowest groundwater levels in mid to late summer. Zones of perched and/or trapped water can be encountered at times throughout the year in more permeable zones in the subgrade soils and perched water is commonly observed in subgrade soils immediately above lower permeability bedrock. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Swell—Consolidation Test Results The swell-consolidation test is commonly performed to evaluate the swell or consolidation potential of soils or bedrock for determining foundation,floor slab and pavement design criteria.In this test, relatively undisturbed samples obtained directly from a ring barrel sampler are placed in a laboratory apparatus and inundated with water under a predetermined load. The swell-index is the resulting amount of swell or collapse as a percent of the sample's original thickness after the inundation period. After the inundation period,additional incremental loads are applied to evaluate the swell pressure and/or of consolidation. 1 1 I I' Earth Engineering Consultants,Inc. EEC Project No. 1102081 January 5,2011 Page 5 For this assessment,we conducted seven(7) swell-consolidation tests at various intervals/depths o throughout the site. The swell index values for the sample analyzed for pavement design criteria, i.e., soil samples tested at the 150 psf-inundation pressure), revealed low to moderate swell characteristics on the order of(+) 3.3%. The swell index values for the upper level cohesive samples analyzed for foundation design criteria,(i.e.,soil samples tested at the 500 psf-inundation pressure),revealed generally low swell characteristics on the order of(+)0.0 to(+)2.4%. The(-) Q test results indicate the tendency to consolidate upon inundation with water, while the (+) test results indicate the swell potential characteristics. 0 Colorado Association of Geotechnical Engineers(CAGE)uses the following information to provide uniformity in terminology between geotechnical engineers to provide a relative correlation of slab performance risk to measured swell. "The representative percent swell values are not necessarily measured values;rather,they are a judgment of the swell of the soil and/or bedrock profile likely to a influence slab performance." Geotechnical engineers use this information to also evaluate the swell potential risks for foundation performance based on the risk categories. Recommended Representative Swell Potential Descriptions and Corresponding Slab Performance Risk Categories Slab Performance Risk Representative Percent Swell Representative Percent Swell Category 500 psf Surcharge) 1000 psf Surcharge) Low 0to<3 0<2 Moderate 3 to<5 2 to<4 High 5to<8 4to<6 Very High 8 6 Based on the laboratory test results, the samples analyzed for this project were within the low range. 1 1 1 i I II Earth Engineering Consultants,Inc. fl EEC Project No. 1102081 January 5,2011 Page 6 General Considerations aGeneral Site Preparation Based on our understanding of the proposed development, it appears that small amounts of cut and/or fill,less than 3 feet;may be necessary to achieve final design grades. After stripping and completing all cuts and prior to placement of any additional fill and/or site improvements, we recommend the exposed soils be scarified to a minimum depth of 9 inches,adjusted in moisture 0 content to within±2%of standard Proctor optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95%of the material's standard Proctor maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM Specification D-698. D Depending upon depth of excavation across the site,areas of soft/compressible cohesive soils at D or near the groundwater levels may require ground modifications/ground stabilization procedures to create a working platform for construction equipment and/or foundations. If necessary, consideration could be given to placement of a granular material,such as a 3-inch minus recycled concrete or equivalent,embedded into the soft soils,prior to placement of additional fill material, foundations,or operating heavy earth-moving equipment. Supplemental recommendations,such as overexcavation and replacement with approved on-site soils or imported fill,will be evaluated at time of construction, as-needed. Fill materials required for developing the building,pavement,and site subgrades should consist of approved,low-volume-change materials,which are free from organic matter and debris. It is our opinion the on-site essentially cohesive soils could be used as fill in these areas, provided adequate moisture treatment and compaction procedures are followed. We recommend the fill soils be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches thick and adjusted in moisture content and compacted as recommended for the scarified soils. If the site lean clay soils are used as fill material,care will be needed to maintain the recommended moisture content prior to and during construction of overlying improvements. II II 1 II 111 Earth Engineering Consultants,Inc. EEC Project No. 1102081 January 5,2011 Page 7 In areas where excavations will extend below existinggroundwater table, such as deeputility 0 installations, placement of cleaner granular fill material may be desirable. Those materials should be placed in lifts and compacted to at least 70%relative density,where applicable. Care should be exercised after preparation of the subgrades to avoid disturbing the subgrade materials. Positive drainage should be developed away from the structure to avoid wetting of a subgrade materials. Subgrade materials becoming wet subsequent to construction of the site structures can result in unacceptable performance. DAs presented on the enclosed boring logs and laboratory test results, generally low swelling cohesive soils are present on this site;however, some expansion of the dry lean clay subgrades should be expected. This report provides recommendations to help mitigate the effects of soil expansion or consolidation. Even if these procedures are followed,some movement and at least minor cracking in the structures should be anticipated. The severity of cracking and other cosmetic damage such as uneven floor slabs will probably increase if any modification of the site results in excessive wetting or drying of the site soils. Eliminating the risk of movement and cosmetic distress may not be feasible, but it may be possible to further reduce the risk of movement if significantly more expensive measures are used during construction. Some of these aoptions, such as over-excavating and replacing site materials are discussed in this report. We would be pleased to discuss other construction alternatives with you upon request. Foundation Systems—General Considerations The site appears suitable for the proposed construction based on the results of our field exploration and review of the proposed development plans. The following foundation systems were evaluated for use on the site depending upon final design grades and type of construction,(i.e.,slab-on-grade versus full-depth or partial basement construction). a For slab-on-grade construction bearingwithin the upper level native soils:conventional typePp spread footings bearing on native low swell potential soils could be considered. For full-depth basement construction:conventional type spread footings bearing on acceptable native soils or approved ground modified native subsoils as described herein are suitable for 1 II II Earth Engineering Consultants,Inc. EEC Project No. 1102081 January 5,2011 Page 8 use.Consideration could also be given to over-excavating and replacing the soft/compressible soils with imported structural fill material. Additional recommendations can be provided upon request. If actual wall and/or column loads exceed those as assumed herein or if the anticipated movement cannot be tolerated, consideration could also be given to supporting the proposed structure on a deep foundation. It will be necessary to develop additional deeper information on subsurface materials to develop recommendations for deeper foundations. Particular attention will be required during the supplemental site observations,such as"open-hole" or foundation excavation observations to further assess the soil conditions and foundation design bearing strata for the building. For this project and assuming some potential risks of foundation movements should the underlying soils become elevated in moisture contents, the use of conventional type spread footings are suitable for use, provided the design details as presented below are followed. Footing Foundations The upper level essentiallycohesive soils exhibited generallylow swell potential and moderatepp bearing characteristics. Maximum measured swells were on the order of 2.4%with a 500 psf dead load. For lower level basement construction, higher moisture contents may result in soft/compressible characteristics of the on-site cohesive soils at increased depths,necessitating stabilization and enhancement of the structural integrity of the subgrade soils prior to placement of footing foundations, as-needed. EEC recommends placing and compacting/embedding an approximate 8 to 12-inch layer of 2 to 3-inch minus recycled concrete or 1-V2 inch minus washed gravel, ASTM C33 Size 67 or an approved equivalent material, within the subgrade material. The gravel should be embedded into observed soft cohesive zone to enhance the material's structural integrity and create a stable/working platform prior to placement of footing foundations. Conventionaltype spread footings could be used to support the proposed slab on grade or lowerpgPPPP level basement constructed medical office building provided the footings are placed on approved low swell potential,stable bearing soils and provided the maximum anticipated wall and column loads do not exceed those presented herein. 1 II m Earth Engineering Consultants,Inc. EEC Project No. 1102081 January 5,2011 Page 9 II Footings bearing on approved bearing conditions as described herein could be designed for a maximum net allowable total load bearing pressure of 2,500 psf. The net bearing pressure refers to the pressure at foundation bearing level in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden 111 pressure. Total load should include full dead and live loads. Footings should be proportioned to reduce differential foundation movement. We estimate the total long term settlement of footings designed as outlined above would be about one-inch.If actual design loads exceed the assumed values as previously presented and/or if the anticipated movement cannot be tolerated,we should be consulted to provide supplemental design criteria, if necessary. The backfill soils adjacent to the foundations should be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 9 0 inches thick,moisture conditioned to+/-2%of the material's standard Proctor optimum moisture content and mechanically compacted to at least 95% of standard Proctor dry density, ASTM D698. Settlement of the back fill soils extending to a depth on the order of 12 feet may be on the order of one(1)to 1%2 inches. aAfter placement of the fill materials, for foundation support, care should be taken to avoid wetting or drying of those materials. Bearing materials,which are loosened or disturbed by the 111 construction activities or materials,which become dry and desiccated or wet and softened,should be removed and replaced or reworked in place prior to construction of the overlying improvements. J Exterior foundations and foundations in unheated areas should be located at least 30 inches below adjacent exterior grade to provide frost protection. We recommend formed continuous footings have a minimum width of 12 inches and isolated column foundations have a minimum width of 24 inches. Seismic Conditions The site soil conditions consist of greater than 30-feet of medium dense/stiff overburden soils. For those site conditions, the 2009 International Building Code indicates a Seismic Site Classification of D. 1 II Earth Engineering Consultants,Inc. EEC Project No. 1102081 January 5,2011 Page 10 D Lateral Earth Pressures We understand the new building will be constructed as"below grade"full-depth basement. The basement wall portions of the structure will be subject to lateral earth pressures. Passive lateral earth pressures may help resist the driving forces for retaining wall or other similar site 0 structures. Active lateral earth pressures could be used for design of structures where some movement of the structure is anticipated,such as retaining walls. The total deflection of structures for design with active earth pressure is estimated to be on the order of one half of one percent of the height of the down slope side of the structure. We recommend at-rest pressures be used for design of structures where rotation of the walls is restrained. Passive pressures and friction between the footing and bearing soils could be used for design of resistance to movement of retaining walls. Coefficient values for backfill with anticipated types of soils for calculation of active,at rest and passive earth pressures are provided in the table below. Equivalent fluid pressure is equal to the coefficient times the appropriate soil unit weight. Those coefficient values are based on 111 horizontal backfill with backfill soils consisting of essentially granular materials with a friction angle of a 35 degrees or low volume change cohesive soils. For the at-rest and active earth pressures, slopes down and away from the structure would result in reduced driving forces with slopes up and away from the structures resulting in greater forces on the walls. The passive resistance would be reduced with slopes away from the wall. The top 30-inches of soil on the passive resistance side of walls could be used as a surcharge load;however,should not be used as a part of the passive resistance value. Frictional resistance is equal to the tangent of the friction angle times the normal force. I II I III Earth Engineering Consultants,Inc. I EEC Project No. 1102081 January 5,2011 Page 11 II fl Soil Type Low Plasticity Cohesive Medium Dense Granular Wet Unit Weight 115 135 aSaturated Unit Weight 135 140 I Friction Angle(0)—(assumed)25° 35° Active Pressure Coefficient 0.40 0.27 At-rest Pressure Coefficient 0.58 0.43 IPassive Pressure Coefficient 2.46 3.70 IlSurcharge loads or point loads placed in the backfill can also create additional loads on below grade walls. Those situations should be designed on an individual basis. 0 The outlined values do not include factors of safety nor allowances for hydrostatic loads and are a based on assumed friction angles,which should be verified after potential material sources have been identified. Care should be taken to develop appropriate drainage systems behind below grade walls to eliminate potential for hydrostatic loads developing on the walls. Those systems IIwould likely include perimeter drain systems extending to sump areas or free outfall where reverse flow cannot occur into the system. Where necessary,appropriate hydrostatic load values Ishould be used for design. IFloor Slabs Floor slab subgrades should be prepared as outlined in the"General Site Preparation"section of Ithis report. The subgrade soils observed in the test borings show swell potential of up to 2.4%at a dead load of 500 psf. The moisture/density conditioning the subgrade immediately beneath the Ifloor slabs will not eliminate the possibilities of slab movement; but movements should be reduced and tend to be more uniform. We estimate the long term movement of upper level floor I slabs with properly prepared subgrade subsoils as outlined above would be on the order of one inch or more. If that level of slab movement cannot be tolerated for the proposed upper level floor slabs, the use of a minimum 2-foot layer of imported structural fill material placed and 1 I II Earth Engineering Consultants,Inc. EEC Project No. 1102081 January 5,2011 Page 12 compacted beneath the floor slabs could be considered. This procedure will also not fully eliminate the possibilities of slab movement; but movements should be further reduced and should tend to be more uniform. DAdditional floor slab design and construction recommendations are as follows: 0 Positive separations and/or isolation joints should be provided between slabs and all foundations, columns or utility lines to allow independent movement. o Control joints should be provided in slabs to control the location and extent of cracking. A minimum 2-inch void space should be constructed above or below non-bearing apartition walls placed on slabs on grade. Special framing details should be provided at doorjambs and frames within partition walls to avoid potential 0 distortion. Partition walls should be isolated from suspended ceilings. Interior trench backfill placed beneath slabs should be compacted in a similar manner as previously described for footing and floor slab fill. a In areas subjected to normal loading,a 4 to 6-inch layer of clean-graded gravel or aggregate base course should be placed beneath interior floor slabs. a Floor slabs should not be constructed on frozen subgrade. Other design and construction considerations, as outlined in the ACI Design Manual, Section 302.1R are recommended. Basement Construction At the time of our field exploration, groundwater was observed at approximate depths of 15 to 20-feet below existing site grades; therefore full-depth basement construction appears feasible provided a perimeter drainage system is installed around the lower level. Groundwater levels may fluctuate;therefore,we provide the following design recommendations for the installation of both an interior and exterior perimeter drainage system for the site. To reduce the potential for groundwater fluctuation to impact the lower levels of the building, installation of an interior,permanent dewatering system is recommended. The interior dewatering 1 1 II Earth Engineering Consultants,Inc. D EEC Project No. 1102081 January 5,2011 Page 13 system should, at a minimum, include an underslab gravel drainage layer sloped to an interior o perimeter drainage system. The interior drainage system should consist of a 4-inch diameter rigid perforated PVC pipe,embedded in free-draining gravel,and placed in a trench at least 12-inches in width. The trench should be inset from the interior edge of the nearest foundation a minimum of 0 12-inches. In addition, the trench should be located such that an imaginary line extending downward at a 45-degree angle from the foundation does not intersect the nearest edge of the D trench. Gravel should extend a minimum of 3 inches beneath the bottom of the pipe. The drainage system should be sloped at a minimum 1/8 inch per foot to a suitable outlet,such as a series of sump and pump systems/units. The underslab drainage layer should consist of a minimum 8-inch thickness of free-draining gravel 0 meeting the specifications of ASTM C33, Size No. 57 or 67, or equivalent. Cross-connecting drainage pipes should be provided beneath the slab at approximate 20-foot intervals, and should odischarge to the perimeter drainage system. We also recommend installing an exterior perimeter foundation drain system around all below grade areas to reduce the potential for hydrostatic loads to develop on below grade walls and/or infiltration of surface water into below grade areas. In general,a perimeter drain system should consist of an approximate 4-inch diameter perforated pipe,placed around the exterior perimeter of the structure,and sloped to drain into a sump pit or an outfall where reverse flow cannot occur into the system. The drain line should be surrounded by a minimum of 6-inches of appropriately- sized granular filter soil. The filter soil or the drain line should be surrounded by a filter fabric to reduce the potential for an influx of fines into the system. Backfill placed above the exterior perimeter drain should consist of approved, low-volume- 1 change materials which are free from organic matter and debris. The on-site lean clay soils could be used as fill in these areas. The top 2 feet of the backfill should be an essentially cohesive material to reduce the potential for an influx of surface water into the below grade drain system. We recommend the fill soils be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches thick, adjusted to 1 within ±2% of optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95% of the material's standard Proctor maximum dry density. 1 1 I' II Earth Engineering Consultants,Inc. EEC Project No. 1102081 January 5,2011 Page 14 Pavement Subgrades/Pavement Design Sections We expect the site pavements will include areas designated for automobile traffic and areas for occasional heavy truck traffic. Heavy truck areas assume an equivalent daily load axle(EDLA) orating of 15 and automobile areas an EDLA of 5. D Proofrolling and recompacting the subgrade is recommended immediately prior to placement of the aggregate road base section. Soft or weak areas delineated by the proofrolling operations should be 0 undercut or stabilized in-place to achieve the appropriate subgrade support. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the site, and the laboratory test results, it is recommended the on-site private drives and parking areas be designed using an R-value of 5,based on the soils classifications of the subsoils on-site. 0 Subgrade stabilization should be considered to mitigate for swelling soils,(i.e.,swell-index values in excess of 2.0% based on a 150 psf loading scheme). The stabilization should include incorporation of a chemical treatment such as lime,kiln dust,and/or fly ash to enhance the subgrade integrity. An alternate would be to over-excavate and/or"cut to grade"to accommodate a minimum of a 12 to 18-inches layer of non-expansive granular soils to be placed and compacted beneath the apavement section. If the fly ash alternative stabilization approach is selected,EEC recommends incorporating 13%(by weight)Class C fly ash,into the upper 12-inches of subgrade. Hot Mix Asphalt(HMA)underlain by crushed aggregate base course with or without a fly ash treated subgrade, and non-reinforced concrete pavement are feasible alternatives for the proposed on-site paved sections. Pavement design methods are intended to provide structural sections with adequate thickness over a particular subgrade such that wheel loads are reduced to a level the subgrade can support. The support characteristics of the subgrade for pavement design do not account for shrink/swell movements of an expansive clay subgrade or consolidation of a wetted subgrade. Thus, the pavement may be adequate from a structural standpoint, yet still experience cracking and deformation due to shrink/swell related movement of the subgrade. It is,therefore, important to minimize moisture changes in the subgrade to reduce shrink/swell movements. 1 II II Earth Engineering Consultants,Inc. I EEC Project No. 1102081 January 5,2011 Page 15 II I The pavement sections could be constructed directly on the approved on-site subgrade soils. Those soils also have low remolded subgrade strength. The subgrades should be thoroughly evaluated and proofrolled prior to pavement construction. 0 Recommended pavement sections are provided below in TABLE I. The hot bituminous I pavement(HBP) should be grading S (75)with PG 58-28 oil. The aggregate base should be Class 5 or Class 6 base. Portland cement concrete should be designed for exterior pavement I applications with a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 3500 psi and should be air entrained. 0 HBP pavements may show rutting and distress in truck loading and turning areas. Concrete pavements should be considered in those areas. 0 TABLE I—RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT SECTIONS I EDLA Automobile Parking Heavy Duty Areas 5 15 Reliability 65% 75% J Resilient Modulus 3025 3025 PSI Loss 2.2 2.2 Design Structure Number 2.39 2.97 IComposite:Alternative A Hot Bituminous Pavement 4" 4'/s" Aggregate Base 6" 9" Design Structure Number 2.42) 2.97) Composite:Alternative B Hot Bituminous Pavement 3" 4" Aggregate Base 4" 6" I 1) Fly Ash Treated Subgrade 12" 12" Design Structure Number 2.36) 3.02) PCC(Non-reinforced) 5" 6" 1 I 1 II D Earth Engineering Consultants,Inc. o EEC Project No. 1102081 January 5,2011 Page 16 1) If fly ash is utilized for the on-site pavement areas for stabilization purposes, it is recommended that at least the upper 12-inches of the prepared subgrade be treated with 1 approximately 13%fly ash(by weight)of Class C fly ash. 0 The recommended pavement sections are minimums and periodic maintenance should be expected. Longitudinal and transverse joints should be provided as needed in concrete pavements for expansion/contraction and isolation. The location and extent of joints should be based upon the afinal pavement geometry. Sawed joints should be cut within 24-hours of concrete placement. All joints should be sealed to prevent entry of foreign material and dowelled where necessary for load 1 transfer. 0 Since the cohesive soils on the site have some shrink/swell potential,pavements could crack in the future primarily because of the volume change of the soils when subjected to an increase in moisture content to the subgrade. The cracking,while not desirable,does not necessarily constitute 0 structural failure of the pavement. Stabilization of the subgrades will reduce the potential for cracking of the pavements. The collection and diversion of surface drainage away from paved areas is critical to the satisfactory performance of the pavement. Drainage design should provide for the removal of water from paved areas in order to reduce the potential for wetting of the subgrade soils. Long-term pavement performance will be dependent upon several factors,including maintaining subgrade moisture levels and providing for preventive maintenance. The following recommendations should be considered the minimum: The subgrade and the pavement surface should be adequately sloped to promote proper surface drainage. Install pavement drainage surrounding areas anticipated for frequent wetting (e.g. garden centers,wash racks) Install joint sealant and seal cracks immediately, Seal all landscaped areas in, or adjacent to pavements to minimize or prevent moisture migration to subgrade soils; 1 1 II 111 Earth Engineering Consultants,Inc. EEC Project No. 1102081 January 5,2011 Page 17 111 Placing compacted,low permeability backfill against the exterior side of curb and gutter;and, e Placing curb, gutter, and/or sidewalk directly on approved proof rolled subgrade soils with the use of base course materials. Preventive maintenance should be planned and provided for through an on-going pavement management program. Preventive maintenance activities are intended to slow the rate of pavement adeterioration,and to preserve the pavement investment. Preventive maintenance consists of both localized maintenance (e.g. crack and joint sealing and patching) and global maintenance (e.g. surface sealing). Preventive maintenance is usually the first priority when implementing a planned pavement maintenance program and provides the highest return on investment for pavements. Prior to implementing any maintenance,additional engineering observation is recommended to determine the type and extent of preventive maintenance. DSite grading is generally accomplished early in the construction phase. However as construction proceeds,the subgrade may be disturbed due to utility excavations,construction traffic,desiccation, a or rainfall. As a result,the pavement subgrade may not be suitable for pavement construction and corrective action will be required. The subgrade should be carefully evaluated at the time of pavement construction for signs of disturbance, rutting, or excessive drying. If disturbance has occurred, pavement subgrade areas should be reworked, moisture conditioned, and properly compacted to the recommendations in this report immediately prior to paving. Please note that if during or after placement of the stabilization or initial lift of pavement,the area is observed to be yielding under vehicle traffic or construction equipment, it is recommended that EEC be contacted for additional alternative methods of stabilization,or a change in the pavement section. Other Considerations Positive drainage should be developed awayfrom the structure and pavement areas with agP minimum slope of 1-inch per foot for the first 10-feet away from the improvements in landscape areas. Care should be taken in planning of landscaping adjacent to the building and parking and drive areas to avoid features which would pond water adjacent to the pavement,foundations or 1 II Earth Engineering Consultants,Inc. a EEC Project No. 1102081 January 5,2011 Page 18 stemwalls. Placement of plants which require irrigation systems or could result in fluctuations of D the moisture content of the subgrade material should be avoided adjacent to site improvements. Lawn watering systems should not be placed within 5 feet of the perimeter of the building and parking areas. Spray heads should be designed not to spray water on or immediately adjacent to 111 the structure or site pavements. Roof drains should be designed to discharge at least 5 feet away from the structure and away from the pavement areas. GENERAL COMMENTS The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil borings performed at the indicated locations and from any other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect any variations, which may occur between borings or across the site. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until 0 construction. If variations appear evident, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report. aIt is recommended that the geotechnical engineer be retained to review the plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding the interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. It is further recommended that the geotechnical engineer be retained for testing and observations during earthwork and foundation construction phases to help determine that the design requirements are fulfilled. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of KBK Structural Design, for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranty,express or implied,is made. In the event that any changes in the nature,design,or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions of this report are modified or verified in writing by the geotechnical engineer. 1 II 1 II DRILLING AND EXPLORATION IIDRILLING&SAMPLING SYMBOLS: SS: Split Spoon- 13/8"I.D.,2"O.D.,unless otherwise noted PS: Piston Sample I ST: Thin-Walled Tube-2"O.D.,unless otherwise noted WS: Wash Sample R: Ring Barrel Sampler-2.42"I.D.,3"O.D.unless otherwise noted PA: Power Auger FT: Fish Tail Bit HA: Hand Auger RB: Rock Bit H DB: Diamond Bit=4",N,B BS: Bulk Sample AS: Auger Sample PM: Pressure Meter HS: Hollow Stem Auger WB: Wash Bore aStandard"N"Penetration: Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2-inch O.D.split spoon,except where noted. WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS: II WL : Water Level WCI: Wet Cave in WS : While Sampling WD: While Drilling DCI: Dry Cave in BCR: Before Casing Removal AB : After Boring ACR: After Casting Removal 0 Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the time indicated. In pervious soils,the indicated levels may reflect the location of ground water. In low permeability soils,the accurate determination of ground water levels is not H possible with only short term observations. DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION DEGREE OF WEATHERING: Soil Classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification Slight Slight decomposition of parent material on system and the ASTM Designations D-2488. Coarse Grained joints. May be color change. Soils have move than 50%of their dry weight retained on a#200 Moderate Some decomposition and color change sieve;they are described as: boulders,cobbles,gravel or sand.throughout. 0 Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight High Rock highly decomposed,may be extremely retained on a#200 sieve;they are described as: clays,if they broken. are plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. HARDNESS AND DEGREE OF CEMENTATION: II Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor Limestone and Dolomite: constituents may be added according to the relative proportions Hard Difficult to scratch with knife. based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse grained Moderately Can be scratched easily with knife. soils are defined on the basis of their relative in-place density and fine grained soils on the basis of their consistency. Hard Cannot be scratched with fingernail. Example: Lean clay with sand, trace gravel, stiff(CL); silty Soft Can be scratched with fingernail. sand,trace gravel,medium dense(SM).Shale.Siltstone and Claystone: II CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS Hard Can be scratched easily with knife,cannot be scratched with fingernail. Unconfined Compressive Moderately Can be scratched with fingernail. I Strength,Qu,psf Consistency Hard Soft Can be easily dented but not molded with 500 Very Soft fingers. 500- 1,000 Soft Sandstone and Conglomerate: 1,001- 2,000 Medium Well Capable of scratching a knife blade. 2,001 - 4,000 Stiff Cemented 4,001 - 8,000 Very Stiff Cemented Can be scratched with knife. I 8,001 - 16,000 Very Hard Poorly Can be broken apart easily with fingers. RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS: Cemented N-Blows/ft Relative Density I 0-3 Very Loose 4-9 Loose 10-29 Medium Dense tE.30-49 Dense k } E I 50-80 Very Dense 80+ Extremely Dense PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF BEDROCK II UNIFIED SOIL CLASSILFICA.]EIO SYSTEM I Soil Classifimtion Group Group Name Criteria far Assigning Group Symbols and Group names Using Laboratory Tests Symbol H Coarse-Grained Gravels more than Clean Grovels Less Soils more than 50% of coarse than 5% fines CuZ4 and <Cc53` GW Well—graded grovel` 50% retained on fraction retained No. 200 sieve on No. 4 sieve Cu<4 and/or 1>Cc>3E GP Poorly-graded gravel' IGrovels with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel, G,H more than 12% fines Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey Gravel` ' O Sands 50% or Clean Sands Less Cu..5 and 1<CcS3` sw Well-graded sand' more coarse than 5% fines fraction posses Cu<& and/or 1>Cc>3` SP Poorly—graded sand' No. 4 sieve O Sands with Fines Fines classifyas ML or.MH more than 12% SM Silty sand'"` fines Fines classify os CL or CH SC Clayey sordw4' Fine-Grained Silts and Clays inorganic PI>7 and plots on or above"A"line CL Lean, clay"I' . O Soils 50% or Li more passes the thanquid 50Limit less P1<4 or plots below "A"Line ML SltLAA' No. 200. sievee organic Liquid Limit — oven dried Organic clayW 0.75 OL m. III Liquid Limit — not dried Organic silt"t.'ta Silts and Clays inorganic PI plots on or above -Aline CH Fat- clay Liquid Limit 50 or II more PI plots below "A*Line MH Elastic Silt`"' organic Liquid Limit — oven dried Organic cloy' 0.75 OH Liquid Limit not dried Organic sift''' 111 Highly organic sails Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat Based on the material passing the 3-in. (75- c _ 5"- if soil contains 15 to 29Xplus No. 200, add gnat slew 0ar 1_ x () with sand' or "with gravel'. whichever is 0 Id field sample contained cabbies or boulders, or both. odd 'with cobbles or boulders, or both' If soil contains 2 30' plus Na 200 to group names If soil contains 2155 Bond, add'xith'son predominant. predominantly sand, add 'sandy to group Cwvels with 5 to 12% `ores required dual name. also of ufines classify os CL-All, p name. use dual.symbol atf soil contains 2 30%plus Na. 200 Val-GlA wall graded gravel with silt CC- or SC- predominantly gravel, odd "gravely" to group 111 0W-GC set-graded grovel with day t1 faces brei organic. add'wtth organic fines-to Noma. tP-GM e with satgroup _ PI24 and plots on or above-A• line. GP-GC crowd with day If call contains-?]SSgravel odd"xith gravel' P S4 or plots below 'A• Gee sands with 5 to tb6' Fetes require dual PI plots on ar above •A• line.to.group names PI plots below 'A• line.symbols If Attarberg limits plots shaded.area, sail is a. SR-918 well-graded sand with sat CL-Mt, city cloy. SW-5C wed-graded sand with day I S'-S M poorly graded sand with sat SP-SC ply graded sand with day sa Imraoaslrieation of Me-gaped m a an d od traction of worse- s' Equation of'A'-Me f Ilarbontd at PI-4 to LL..25.5. d'i `an P1-0.73(11.-20) r ElI E than of V'-rm.. O 40_ Yertkd at 1,L 18 to Ph•7. X then PI=0.9(LL-a) s ,.G in II G, MH OH II 10- 7 .fir%at tar ii,•17. ML aR OL Ft eo 10 20. 30 40 50 80 70 80 90 100 110 ILIQUID- LIMIT (LL) II III bc Il o co Eb 0 O lIIIl ' '''' i : /''''.' Lfr r al f x ZQ i II a e S N 4PI a, o c4 A I SLR^roO• ) Q O J w II 0 078U 4 0 O cn p o i-+ N a , C jj.. p„ r 0.• +• U 1 az t O fW ii-ri 44 e o III 1.4 E?-' t 1 r OH:i,0.1'..'''' 1 : :'' tlf.I d m <g : I i 5 I 1.••: '... c o Y a G VO 4Oow _ I sp DR y • Q n N 6 0 a o CO ( a 3. I III a, ' r Lt +rASrt i a, r . r " t;' , t.a`tom° rnk t r ",„, i s.. t• t ' :. .:.4.a '` .: ad b _,,, wa . t r Tom,.r JF, IY q i J r 3 ' t z a " °` p. ft rt.; ifs £ r-C . ' ' t `" a ,'s''" t : k 1 , • ": r .r." arcs .•Ef. h. 5 1 nwrv. .ram• x.s "yw•r >„ "' f. t t ^" Ytz At F 1 --• 7, s y 1 tr t 4 t t t t .n r 1 F : .y IS 'F.. S t R , f Y gk t t, 3 ti r.. « , N . 7 s r c i b' i C y S t d r,..;` - +*;, t E''.xs <nfit.r y € ' r---` 7/ --Va EJ k.` F s rY i a ," i P'H'. ;T' ) # 1t 1+ • 1 3 . f r rz 3` a "- S e: v++ Siak i“. y h t + , ``ta5.` ,,,,,:' T .. a ' ;'^ t awl,., s zr` r+t a ra.' di, r Via•:- P .'• e s" "? s , r • ' II r a g O 7 yr $Ott Ay ;( 2 4 t/ y 11 1'fa.SF'F9`' rt E^ t3 1 at 117 ti x : f ' r1111 a a f 4 PHO•TO•# 2;II r. ISLAMIC CENTER OF FORT COLLINS FORT COLLINO COLORADO EEC PR0mCTNO.1102081 T r ram'%# DECEMBER 2010 I III II ISLAMIC CENTER OF FORT COLLINS FORT COLLINS,COLORADO I PROJECT NO: 1102081 DATE: DECEMBER 2010 LOG OF BORING B-1 RIG TYPE: CME46 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: DO START DATE 12/22/2010 WHILE DRILLING None AUGER TYPE: 4"CFA FINISH DATE 12I22/2010 AFTER DRILLING N/A I SPT HAMMER: MANUAL SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A 801E DESCRIPTION D N DU MC DD A-LIMITS 00 SWELL TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF)PCF) _ LL _ PI (%) PRESSURE %5 800 PSF TOPSOIL&VEGETATION II LEAN CLAY(CL) brown/red 2 stiff to very stiff/medium dense 0 with calcareous deposits 3_ 4 II1 CS 6 27 9000+ 5.3 114.1 6 0 7 8 ill 9 CS 10 18 7600 17.2 110.4 33 17 88.4 1300 PSF 0.9% II 1-1 I 1-2 1-3 I 14 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL)/CLAYEY SAND(SC) SS 16 10 3000 14.1 brown/red 0 medium stiff/medium dense 16 1-7 i 1-8 1-9 I SS _ _ 8 1000 24.7 20 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 2O.17 21 I 2-2 23 24 2-6 IIEarth Engineering Consultants I II IIISLAMIC CENTER OF FORT COLLINS FORT COLLINS,COLORADO I PROJECT NO: 1102081 DATE: DECEMBER 2010 LOG OF BORING B-2 RIO TYPE; CME45 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: DO START DATE 12/22/2010 WHILE DRILLING 18.5' AUGER TYPE:4"CFA FINISH DATE 12/22/2010 AFTER DRILLING N/A I SPT HAMMER: MANUAL SURFACE ELEV w N/A 24 HOUR N/A SOIL DESCRIPTION D N DU MC DO A11MIT8 200 SWELL TYPE (FEET) (SLOWS/FT) (PSF)PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % 500.PSF TOPSOIL&VEGETATION II 1_ CLAYEY SAND(SC) brawn/red 2 medium dense illwith calcareous deposits and trace gravel 3_ 4 II CS 5 27 9000 3.8 108.0 23 7 39.0 <500 PSF None 6 I increase in clay with depth 7 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) 8 II red/brown very stiff to stiff 9 with calcareous deposits CS 10 21 9000 16.0 112.6 1800 PSF 2.1%. II 1-1 I 1-2 1-3 I 1-4 SS 1-5 11 3500 14.7 a 16 1-7 I 18 1-9 SILTY SAND(SM)I CS 20 13 18.9 medium dense with light gravel 2-1 22 2-3 24 Gay seams SS 25 9 2000 29.9 Earth Engineering Consultants I II IIISLAMIC CENTER OF FORT COLLINS FORT COLLINS,COLORADO I PROJECT NO: 1102081 DATE: DECEMBER 2010 LOG OF BORING B-2 RIG TYPE: CME46 SHEET 2 OF 2 WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: DO START DATE 12/22/2010 WHILE DRILLING 18.5' AUGER TYPE: 4"CFA FINISH DATE 12/22/2010 AFTER DRILLING N/A ll SPT HAMMER: MANUAL SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR NIA SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DO A-LIMITS 200 SWELL I TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF)PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE %G 600 PSF Continued from Sheet 1 of 2 26 iSILTY SAND(SM) 27 medium dense with light gravel 28 i 29 II CS 3-0 18 18.1 116.5 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 30.0' 31 I 3-2 3-3 I 3-4 36 I36 3-7 38 3-9 IIao 4-1 42 4-3 44 I 4-6 4-8 I 4-7 4-8 I 4-9 6-0 1 Earth Engineering Consultants 1 I IIISLAMIC CENTER OF FORT COLLINS FORT COLLINS,COLORADO 1 PROJECT NO: 1102081 DATE: DECEMBER 2010 LOG OF BORING B S RIG TYPE: CME4ti SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: DG START DATE 12/22/2010 WHILE DRILLING 18.5' AUGER TYPE: 4"CFA FINISH DATE 12/22/2010 AFTER DRILLING N/A I SPT HAMMER: MANUAL SURFACE ELEV NIA 24 HOUR NIA SOIL DESCRIPTION D N OU MC DD A-LIMITS 200 SWELL TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF)PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE %te 600 PSF TOPSOIL 8 VEGETATION 1 1— SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) brown/red 2 very stiff to stiff/dense to medium dense Iwith traces of gravel 3_ 4 CS 6 40 9000+ 4.9 122.3 3400 PSF 2.4% 6 1 7 8 a 9 SS 1-0 19 9000+ 10.7 114.8 1200 PSF 0.3% 111 I 1-2 1-3 I 14increaseindaywithdepth traces of gravel SS 15 11 4500 17.0 I 1-6 17 18 19 1 I CS 20 7 1000 28.5 98.1 2-1 22 2-3 24 SS 2-6 9 1000 28.2 Earth Engineering Consultants 1 ISLAMIC CENTER OF FORT COLLINS FORT COLLINS,COLORADO PROJECT NO:1102081 DATE: DECEMBER 2010 LOG OF BORING B-3 RIG TYPE: CME45 SHEET 2 OF 2 WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: DG START DATE 12/22/2010 WHILE DRILLING 18.5' AUGER TYPE:4"CFA FINISH DATE 12/22/2010 AFTER DRILLING N/A o SPT HAMMER: MANUAL SOIL DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A D N QU MC DD ALIMR8 R00 SWELL TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF)PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE %rat 000 REF. Continued from Sheet 1 of 2 26 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL)/CLAYEY SAND(SC) 27 brown/red stiff/medium dense 28 0 29 SS 3-0 19 2000 21.5 aBOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 30.5' 31 0 3-2 3-3 o3- 4 3-5 3-8 3-7 U 38 3-9 U 40 4-1 42 4-3 O 44 a-s a-s 0 4-7 4-8 a 4-9 5-0 Earth Engineering Consultants a I illISLAMIC CENTER OF FORT COLLINS FORT COLLINS,COLORADO ft PROJECT NO: 1102081 DATE: DECEMBER 2010 LOG OF BORING B RIG TYPE: CME46 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: DG - START DATE 12/22/2010 WHILE DRILLING None AUGER TYPE:4"CFA FINISH DATE 12/22/2010 AFTER DRILLING N/A II SPT HAMMER: MANUAL SURFACE ELEV WA 124 HOUR w NIA SOIL DESCRIPTION D N cu MC CIDAA-LIMITS Too SWELL TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF)PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE I.%a.600 PSF TOPSOIL&VEGETATION II 1— SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) brown/red 2 stiff to very stilt with calcareous deposits CS 3 25 5.1 103.E 27 10 67.9 1800 PSF 1.6%a 4 IlSS -5 28 9000+ 11.5 8 I 7 increase in clay 8 9 LCS 10 18 9000 21.8 103.8 Ill 1-1 I 1-2 1-3 I 1-4 CLAYEY SAND(SC)SS 1-5 10 2000 18.3 red/brown I medium dense 16 light sandy gravel seams 1-7 18 R —II 20 7 1000 25.4 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5' 2-1 I 22 2-3 24 2-6 Earth Engineering Consultants 1 II IIISLAMIC CENTER OF FORT COLLINS FORT COLLINS,COLORADO fl PROJECT NO: 1102081 DATE: DECEMBER 2010 LOG OF BORING B 6 m. - - RIG TYPE: CME45 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: DO START DATE 12/22/2010 WHILE DRILLING None AUGER TYPE: 4"CFA FINISH DATE 12/22/2010 AFTER DRILLING N/A O SPT HAMMER:MANUAL SURFACE ELEV NIA 24 HOUR NIA SOIL DESCRIPTION D N DU MC DD A•LIMnB 400 SWELL TVPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF)PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE %14 150 PSF TOPSOIL&VEGETATION I SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) brown/red 2 stiff to very stiff/medium denseIwithcalcareousdepositsCS _3_ 30 9000+ 6.2 116.7 2000 PSF 3.3% 4 Ii SS 6 22 9000+ 8.8 8 I 8 9 CLAYEY SAND(SC) brown/red SS 10 17 9000 18.0 I medium dense to dense BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 10.5' 11 I 1-2 1-3 I 1-4 16 1-6 1-7 1 18 1-9 20 2-1 I 22 2-3 24 2-6 IEarth Engineering Consultants I II IIIISLAMIC CENTER OF FORT COLLINS FORT COLLINS,COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1102081 DATE: DECEMBER 2010 II LOG OF BORING B-8 RIG TYPE: CME45 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: DG START DATE 12/2212010 WHILE DRILLING None AUGER TYPE: 4"CFA FINISH DATE 12/22/2010 AFTER DRILLING N/A m SPT HAMMER: MANUAL SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A SOIL DESCRIPTION D N OM MC OD A LIMBS 200 SWELL TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF)PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE %G-500 PSF TOPSOIL&VEGETATION i 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL)to CLAYEY SAND(SC) brown/red 2 stiff to very stiff/medium dense with calcareous deposits I CS 3 29 9000+ 8.9 105.5 4 II traces of gravel 1—: _8_13 7000 9.1 8 a 7= 8 o 9 SS 1-0 17 9000 10.9 iBOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 10.5' 11 1-2 13 III 1-4 1-5 U 1-6 1-7 111 1-8 19 I 2-0 21 22 23 I 24 2-5 IEarth Engineering Consultants II 111 SWELL /CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS II Material Description: Brown, Red, Calcareous Lean Clay(CL) Sample Location: Boring 1, Sample 2, Depth 9' Liquid Limit: 33 Plasticity Index: 17 Passing#200: 88.4% IIBeginning Moisture: 17.2%Dry Density: 110.4 psf !Ending Moisture: 21.3% Swell Pressure: 1300 psf Swell ©500: 0.7% II 10.0 III 8.0 II 6.0 Ia)cn 4.0 c r 2.0 d E 2 0.0 IIa - 2.0 W:LerAdded 4.0 co473as 0- - 6.0 y I0 8.0 I 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 ILoad(TSF) I 1-::. 1-,-IT:il 6:,),Project: Islamic Center of Fort Collins Fort Collins, Colorado j a 1 Project#: 1102081 Date: December 2010 I II iiSWELL /CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS fl Material Description: Brown,Red, Calcareous Clayey Sand traces of gravel (SC) Sample Location: Boring 2, Sample 1, Depth 4' Liquid Limit: 23 Plasticity Index: 7 Passing#200: 39.0% IBeginning Moisture: 3.8% Dry Density: 108 psf Ending Moisture: 16.7% Swell Pressure: <500 psf Swell @ 500: None II 10.0 1' 8.0 II 6.0 II 3 4.0 1 2.0 1 E o a Nater Ad ed2.0 4.0 o v -6.0 0 o 8.0 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 Load(TSF) Project: Islamic Center of Fort Collins Fort Collins, Colorado Project#: 1102081 E C'.t Date: December 2010 I II IISWELL /CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS I Material Description: Brown, Red, Calcareous Sandy Lean Clay(CL) Sample Location: Boring 2, Sample 2, Depth 9' Liquid Limit: -- Plasticity Index: -- Passing#200: -- 1 Beginning Moisture: 16.0%Dry Density: 112.6 psf Ending Moisture: 21.5% Swell Pressure: 1800 psf Swell @ 500 : 2.1% III 10.0 - I H 8.0 1 Il 6.0 I 3" 4.0 II 2.0 1 1 2 0.0 6----"------______ e -'. 11\\ 1 o a - 2.0 Water Added I I 4.0 111 o m a -6.0 o co 0 o 8.0 I 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 ILoad(TSF) 1 Project: Islamic Center of Fort Collins t c, ,Fort Collins, Colorado 1 Project#: 1102081 E'I Date: December 2010 1 II IISWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS I Material Description: Brown, Red, Calcareous Sandy Lean Clay(CL) Sample Location: Boring 3, Sample 1, Depth 4' Liquid Limit: --- Plasticity Index: --- I VALUE! IIBeginning Moisture: 4.9% Dry Density: 122.3 psf Ending Moisture: 14.2% Swell Pressure: 3400 psf Swell @ 500: 2.4% II 10.0 Ii 8.0 Ii 6.0 II a) 3 Cl) 4.0 II 2.0 a. c IIio 0.0 e— a -*.--. 6%. 4\ 0c D 0 a - 2.0 WatPr AddF d II 4.0 I c a 6.0 o Cl) I c 8.0 I 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 ILoad(TSF) I Project: Islamic Center of Fort Collins Fort Collins, Colorado E E CIProject#: 1102081 Date: December 2010 I II IISWELL /CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 1 Material Description: Brown, Red Sandy Lean Clay(CL) Sample Location: Boring 3, Sample 2, Depth 9' Liquid Limit: -- Plasticity Index: -- Passing#200: -- IBeginning Moisture: 10.7%Dry Density: 114.6 psf Ending Moisture: 15.1% Swell Pressure: 1200 psf Swell @ 500: 0.3% I 10.0 II 8.0 Ill 6.0 II 3o co 4.0 0 2.0 I 5 2 0.0 ICD -2.0 Water Added 1 4.0 I c0 CCIa -6.0 0 U) I0 8.0 I 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 ILoad(TSF) 1 Project Islamic Center of Fort Collins Fort Collins, Colorado EEC"IProject#: 1102081 Date: December 2010 I II ISWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS fl Material Description: Brown, Red, Calcareous Sandy Lean Clay(CL) Sample Location: Boring 4, Sample 1, Depth 2' Liquid Limit: 27 Plasticity Index: 10 Passing#200: 57.9% IBeginning Moisture: 5.1% Dry Density: 103.5 psf 'Ending Moisture: 22.2% Swell Pressure: 1600 psf Swell @ 500: 1.5% II 10.0 II 8.0 Il 6.0 Ia)4.0 c 2.0 m I E 2 0.0 c I 4 L o a - 2.0 Water Added 4.0 c 03 6.0 o co 1 c 8.0 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 ILoad(TSF) Project: Islamic Center of Fort Collins Fort Colorado l''' -EEC ' Project#: Fort CollinsCol Date: December 2010 I II IISWELL /CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS O Material Description: Brown, Red Calcareous Sandy Lean Clay(CL) Sample Location: Boring 5, Sample 1, Depth 2' Liquid Limit: -- Plasticity Index: -- Passing#200: -- IBeginning Moisture: 6.2% Dry Density: 116.7 psf Ending Moisture: 15.9% Swell Pressure: 2000 psf Swell @ 150: 3.3% II 10.0 0 8.0 l 6.0 I 3 co 4.0 I 2.0 I 1 No 2 0.0 e c Water Added111 a) a - 2.0 1 4.0 1 c 63 6.0 o co IC 8.0 I 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 1 Load(TSF) 1 Project: Islamic Center of Fort Collins Fort Collins, Colorado Project#: 1102081 Date: December 2010 I II II III EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. ftSUMMARY OF GRADATION TEST RESULTS ftGRADATION OF AGGREGATE(ASTM C-136) SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING ft 5 f 100% r 4" 3" 1 100% 100% 2" 1 100% 1 1/2" I 100% 1"100% 3/4" F 100% 1/2"I 98% r1 3/8"I 97% No.4 93% No.8 88% No. 16 i 80% r No.30 4 69% No.40 f 61% No.50 I 52% INo. 100 i 37.2% No.200 1 25.0% I I Project: Islamic Center of Fort Collins Fort Collins,Colorado EEC Project No.: 1102081 I Date: December 2010 Sample Number: B2,S4,at 19' I I